2015 Jets: Back on Track

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
Yup, that's exactly how I felt.

Our great and talented friends at ITP - particularly Chuck Zodda, who writes about special teams better than anyone I have ever read -- may have written about this, but have 2 point conversions seen an uptick as a result of the embrace of analytics? And is there an easy chart on when it makes sense to go for 2?
Indeed there is
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
The second to me is a no brainer. 4th and 4 from the 7 they might pick up somewhere around 33% of the time (guessing). If they pick it up, its either by scoring a TD or putting themselves in position to have a very high likelihood of scoring a TD (and burning some clock). And if they score a TD, they have a 50% chance of converting the 2 point conversion and making the Bills need a TD of their own to win outright in regulation. On the other hand, there is a very high likelihood that you won't get the ball back if you kick the FG or you'll get the ball back in a situation in which you are a huge dog to even get into FG range (30 seconds left deep in your own territory). If you avoid that situation, its because you stopped them on their first series and therefore still have >2:30 left on the clock, which is more than enough time to get a TD anyway (if they fail to convert the 4th and 4). A FG just doesn't do much for you there. Just ask Dan Quinn.
This is correct. Here is another way to think about it: the advantage of kicking the immediate FG is that you only need a FG on your subsequent possession (should there be one). This means that you have about 35 yards less to go before you are in position for the winning score (leave aside probability of actually making the FG for now). But on the other hand, you also kick off following the first FG, so you are giving up around 13 yards of field position relative to where you would be following a failed fourth down conversion. So basically, you are passing up a 33% probability (to use MMS's figure) of a potentially decisive touchdown in exchange for 20 yards of field position on a subsequent drive that may or may not even happen. That's clearly a terrible trade-off even before you take the probability of a FG miss into account.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
This is correct. Here is another way to think about it: the advantage of kicking the immediate FG is that you only need a FG on your subsequent possession (should there be one). This means that you have about 35 yards less to go before you are in position for the winning score (leave aside probability of actually making the FG for now). But on the other hand, you also kick off following the first FG, so you are giving up around 13 yards of field position relative to where you would be following a failed fourth down conversion. So basically, you are passing up a 33% probability (to use MMS's figure) of a potentially decisive touchdown in exchange for 20 yards of field position on a subsequent drive that may or may not even happen. That's clearly a terrible trade-off even before you take the probability of a FG miss into account.
But this calculation doesn't take into account the chances of driving into position for the game winning FG. It is not quite this simple, but you have to compare the 33% vs. the chances of getting a stop and driving into FG range if you kick the FG to go down 22-20. With 3 minutes left, 3 timeouts, the 2 minute warning, and the quality of the Jets D, I think they would have had a better chance of getting a stop and getting into FG range than they would have of scoring a TD on the 4th down play (or even if you add the alternate probability of not scoring a TD, getting a stop, getting the ball back, and still having to score a TD).

Like I said upthread if I have the Pats personnel I take a totally different approach. This analysis isn't taking place in a vacuum. With Brady I go for it in both situations.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Go for it decisions were both pretty clearly correct and the 2nd one is a complete no brainer. Down 5, 7 yards for the lead, makeable 4th down. Worst case is that you don't get the TD you need to stop them on defense, but that's exactly what you need to do anyways if you kick a FG. Bills are also doing exactly what they did and going run/run on 1st and 2nd down 90% of the time from their own 7 yard line and the Jets have a really good run defense. FG/FG gives the advantage of not giving the opposition a possession to try and regain the lead like scoring a TD does, but that is swamped by how close the team on offense is to taking the lead. The only recent one of these type of spots where kicking a FG would have possibly been defensible was the GB/Carolina one where scoring the TD only tied the game and only did so about half the time.

Kicking a FG to cut the lead from 12 to 9 on 4th and 2 from the 20 doesn't really seem very smart to me with 15 minutes left in the game, especially when your team isn't moving the ball very well. I doubt either decision would have moved win EV that much though. Play call/execution/not audibling was the real terrible job there. Someone thought the corner would give some cushion at the snap and as soon as he didn't the play was dead, cant call that on 4th and 2 unless you have a dead on read.

They also don't have to score a TD on the 4th down play at the end. They can still get a 1st down.

I cant really come up with a plausible set of probabilities for scoring, getting stops, etc that make kicking a FG better there. Its easy math, so Im open to an example, but everything I plug is says go for it is a clear winner.
 
Last edited:

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
Bowles royally screwed the pooch in the 4th quarter, and kept compounding his mistakes

1) Down 22-10, facing 4th and 5 ish, he should have kicked the FG. There were still 15 minutes left, anything could happen
2) Down 22-17, again facing 4th and 5 ish, ~ 3 minutes left, he should have kicked the FG. They have a great D, they would have had 3 timeouts plus the 2 minute warning. You have an awesome defense, take the 3, get the ball back, and win the game on a FG

I think there was one other thing he blew but I can't remember
Rick Perry? Is that you?
 

k-factory

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
1,854
seattle, wa
I'm with tims4wins on this. Context matters. If you have Tom Brady of course you go for it both times but in a defensive game especially in that 4th and 4 on the 7 at 3:02 with 3 timeouts + 2 minute warning at home intuitively seemed too risky.

  • Fitz has been very erratic all game.
  • Even if you convert you aren't necessarily going to score the TD.
  • Your defense is what defines you and in the last 4 possessions has held the Bills to 4 straight 3 and outs - the last one being the fumbled punt. Momentum is squarely with the Jets D and the Bills offense is a hot mess.
  • Of the 5 total Bills scores only 2 were legit drives against the D (1 defensive TD, 2 FGs after a pick and a fumble).
  • You have a home field crowd to help.
  • You have a very good kicker in Nick Folk who has actually nailed two 50+ FGs this year so when you get the ball back you don't need to drive the entire length of the field.

I hear the Dan Quinn comparisons but that team was at the 1 yard line with 2 timeouts with 2:54 left and they were on the road. They had better offensive options and a worse defense than the Jets.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,781
Somerville, MA
Somebody has probably tracked changes in two point conversion attempts over time but I'm not sure who. I know there is a chart that coaches use for end of game scenarios (BB has referred to having some kind of chart before) but I think the real question regards what point in the game you start thinking in terms of that chart (ie, how much time left).
To look at the numbers through Week 10 of both this year and last year shows the following trends:

2014 - 37 attempted 2-point conversions, 11 rush attempts, 26 pass attempts
2015 - 61 attempted 2-point conversions, 14 rush attempts, 47 pass attempts

Most of the uptick can be traced to the change in XP rules this year, as it has changed the scores typically are facing, rather than any change in the way coaches have thought about 2-point conversions. You probably have to back XPs up another 5-7 yards for coaches to start considering 2-point conversions more often on their own, as that puts kickers into an 85-87% accuracy range as opposed to a 93-95% accuracy range.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
You probably have to back XPs up another 5-7 yards for coaches to start considering 2-point conversions more often on their own, as that puts kickers into an 85-87% accuracy range as opposed to a 93-95% accuracy range.
What if, instead of making XPs harder, you made the 2-point easier by putting it on the 1? Wonder how that would change coaches' calculus.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,781
Somerville, MA
What if, instead of making XPs harder, you made the 2-point easier by putting it on the 1? Wonder how that would change coaches' calculus.
That's an interesting idea, and one that I hadn't thought of. In the last 6 years, we've had 344 2-point attempts with 168 successful. But what you're really changing the calculus on is running plays, since the additional yard doesn't help a lot for passing plays. On running attempts, teams are 50 for 93, so if you potentially bump that up to the 65-70% range by moving in a yard, you do make it more attractive there. That's something to consider.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
Right now the main reason for the extra 2-point attempts seems to be "oh, the idiot kicker missed an XP earlier, now I need a 2-point conversion". I think there needs to be a greater incentive to do the 2-point conversation, not just a disincentive to try the XP. My main worry would have been that it over encourages running but your stats above show that the current placement skews too much in favor of passing anyway.
 

BrazilianSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
3,751
Brasil
How about if we removed the kick-off on a failed 2-point attempt, spotting the ball where the attempt ended? Would the extra yards be worth the risk?
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
How about if we removed the kick-off on a failed 2-point attempt, spotting the ball where the attempt ended? Would the extra yards be worth the risk?
Just to make sure I'm clear. If a team attempts a 2 point conversion and, let's say, gets stuffed at the 1 on a run. Instead of kicking off, the other team would get the ball at the 1?

If that's what you're saying, I'd go for two every time. Even if you got sacked on a play, you're likely to still keep them inside the 10. And if you get stuffed on or inside the 1, you'd have a good chance to get the 2 points from a safety.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
Just to make sure I'm clear. If a team attempts a 2 point conversion and, let's say, gets stuffed at the 1 on a run. Instead of kicking off, the other team would get the ball at the 1?

If that's what you're saying, I'd go for two every time. Even if you got sacked on a play, you're likely to still keep them inside the 10. And if you get stuffed on or inside the 1, you'd have a good chance to get the 2 points from a safety.
It occurs to me that, given the new rule that defenses could score 2 points on a failed attempt, the smart defender would -fall- down at the 1 if he somehow got a 98 yard interception return, end it there, and let this offense score a TD. Is that really the way to go? Seems like that particular new 'let the defense score point on PATs/conversions' would go boof in an instant.
 

Import78

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2007
2,091
West Lebanon, NH
I don't think that would work. After the PAT play (in this case the return to the 1) the team that was attempting the conversion would have to kick off. They wouldn't get the ball where the PAT play ended.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,242
Herndon, VA
Except that the guy just PROPOSED removing the kickoff. So why wouldn't it work, if you get the ball where the attempt ends? Why would anyone finish returning it for a measly 2 points when you could just kneel down at the one after a 99 yard return and go for the TD instead?
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Backing up the kick further makes sense. It's a simple adjustment not involving radical rule changes.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
http://espn.go.com/blog/houston-texans/post/_/id/14127/texans-receiver-deandre-hopkins-is-dominating-jets-cornerback-darrelle-revis

DeAndre Hopkins has turned Revis Island into his own personal playground.

After Hopkins caught his first pass of the game, a 14-yarder along the sideline, he turned to Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis and said something.

If he told Revis to settle in for a long day, he'd have been right. Hopkins dominated Revis in the first half. The Texans led 10-3 at halftime. Hopkins added another touchdown in the third quarter, tying a franchise record for recie

Most of the time, Revis, one of the best to ever play the game, was spotted trailing Hopkins on deep routes. Once he watched inches away as Hopkins made a one-handed catch.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Last week Watkins schooled Revis, too, just didn't finish nearly as well as Hopkins did this week. Granted those are two top shelf receivers, but it's clear that Revis has taken a step down.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,177
Missoula, MT
Last week Watkins schooled Revis, too, just didn't finish nearly as well as Hopkins did this week. Granted those are two top shelf receivers, but it's clear that Revis has taken a step down.

I really think his week 4 or 5 groin injury is much worse than reported as he looks so much slower than normal. Not that he is the fastest guy out there but his positioning and footwork allowed him to stay with the top guys but with the injury, his footwork and adjustments really could suffer.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Last week Watkins schooled Revis, too, just didn't finish nearly as well as Hopkins did this week. Granted those are two top shelf receivers, but it's clear that Revis has taken a step down.
Amari Cooper was also getting open quite a bit. As fluid and smart and strong and technically sound as Revis is he's slowed down (this was evident last year at times and has gotten worse) and the best receivers are just markedly faster than he is.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Last week Watkins schooled Revis, too, just didn't finish nearly as well as Hopkins did this week. Granted those are two top shelf receivers, but it's clear that Revis has taken a step down.
Revis completely shut down Watkins. There was one play where Watkins caught a 5 yard reception everyone made a huge deal out of (it did seal the game) where Doug Kyed pointed out the Jets were probably in zone as one of the jets LBs appeared to apologize to Revis for not covering the flat.

Even if that was on Revis, Watkins had 14 yards receiving, he's the one who got schooled. Hoping Butler can do the same to Watkins tomorrow. Have no interest in seeing Butler in man coverage with no help against Hopkins.

I'm sad this thread hasn't been renamed to Fitztragic
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Last week was more on Taylor making a few bad throws and a drop by Watkins when he beat Revis. Watkins had more targets in that game than any other Bill.

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo-bills-analysis-all-22/2015/11/19/9758982/sammy-watkins-route-running-vs-darrelle-revis-bills-jets-2015-week-10

And on that last play you mentioned, I'm not sure how a LB would have gotten out there in time.
Perhaps it was a DB not an LB. I don't remember.

I think 14 yards on 7 targets says more than a Bills puff piece. Everyone is open if your QB can consistently make great throws and always knows when to look in your direction.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
If you watched the game you'd see Watkins was getting open. Jets D was getting pressure and Taylor was bailing before most of Watkins routes were cut. Revis couldn't handle him but you won't see it from the stats.
 
Cromartie's wife, or "Lady Cro" as she calls herself, is pretty fired up. Apparently, she wasn't happy with Jet fans and responded to some of their tweets NY Post:

To one she responds that his mom should have “aborted your ugly a--.” She later said she doesn’t “give 2 F--ks” about trolls tweeting her, yet continued her defense.

When one fan asks her about the Patriots’ fan base, she responded, “at this point compared to the s–t we get [Patriots fans are] Amazing and Loyal.”

“To Sum it all up the Jets Fan Base ain’t s–t Period,” she wrote.
See, Berry...we're the better fan base, just ask Cro's First Lady.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Not sure how Rivers belongs in that group, I know he has 8 kids but they are all with his wife.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Someone explain to me how First Lady 13 is backwards on the left (hair down) and "correct" on the right (hair up).
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
If you watched the game you'd see Watkins was getting open. Jets D was getting pressure and Taylor was bailing before most of Watkins routes were cut. Revis couldn't handle him but you won't see it from the stats.
Yep. As usual, in football stats don't tell the story. Watkins was open all game long. That Taylor couldn't hit him is a different issue (though to be fair Watkins bungled a ball that should have been a completed bomb -- point still holds he was getting open).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.